Predictable as ever; I can certainly read that much. It's not as if you use particularly big words. Maybe if you put a bit of effort into explaining how terrible and obviously flawed my "rebuttal" is (it wasn't really a rebuttal, but never mind about that), then someone might take you seriously? Probably not though.

Obviously. And there's a clear lineage. Angles -> English, Engla land -> England. There's a clear lineage fHispania too -> Espania. But we're talking in the 21st century, not the 5th.
But just as Engla land is gone so too is Hispania, so too are the Angles, so too are the Hispanics. If you mean people of "Hispania", they are now called the Espanola, or Spanish. If you mean something else, well then you certainly don't mean Hispanic.

Obviously it isn't, on the assumption that your criteria for "best individual for the position" are broad and complete. However, you're only viewing this from a single perspective. What if the hypothetical best person for the position doesn't apply for the position because Apple are a company full of old white men that have shown no interest in diversity and appealing across cultural boundaries?

How? All other things being equal, how is diversity bad? What? How does the word "natural" apply to tech recruitment employment patterns in any way? Diversity is not necessarily natural, sometimes diversity can only happen because of people's efforts at all levels. Referring back to statement 1, diversity for it's own sake, when all other things are equal, is beneficial. Diversity introduces wider opinions, more world experience, broader appeal. Apple don't want to...